De Moor V:18: New Testament Testimonies for the Doctrine of the Trinity, Part 3

2. [Traducing this passage as Spurious.] See Socinus’ Explicationem of 1 John, opera, tome I, page 241n; GERHARD’S Disputationem priorem, § 9-13, pages 1300-1306. While, nevertheless:

α. [There is nothing here in Doctrine or Expression inconsistent with John.] Contrariwise, in teaching τὴν θεολογίαν/ theology, the mystery of the Trinity, and also of the Deity of the Son and the Spirit, John excels all others; to him also, more than the others, it is proper to mark the Son with the name Λόγου/Logos/Word; he also in his Gospel, John 10:30, used that expression ἕν ἐσμεν, we are one, of the Unity of Essence of the Son with the Father; moreover, he expressly mentions in his Gospel, in the words of Christ Himself, those Three heavenly witnesses bearing testimony concerning Christ, John 5:37; 8:18; 15:26: compare GERHARD’S Disputationem priorem, § 41, 42, pages 1341-1344; JOHN ERNEST GRABE,[1]Annotationibus ad Bulli Defensionem Fidei Nicænæ, section II, chapter X, § 2, page 138.

β. Opposition between the Witnesses makes this verse plainly necessary, if you compare verses 7 and 8 with each other: and indeed, that καὶ/and at the beginning of verse 8, where the Witnesses on Earth will be mentioned, aptly lead us to the other Witnesses testifying in Heaven concerning the same matter, previously recounted in verse 7; if the mention of these be removed, all the elegance of the Connection is destroyed: compare TRIGLAND’S Dissertationem de tribus in Cœlo Testibus, Dissertationum Sylloge, § 25-32; GERHARD’S Disputationem priorem on this passage, § 28-40, pages 1323-1341; BENGEL’S Apparatum Criticum, § 28; JOHN ERNEST GRABE’S Annotationes ad Bulli Defensionem Fidei Nicænæ, section II, chapter X, § 2, page 138; HOLTIUS,[2]de Justificatione ex Fide, chapter VIII, pages 130-132.

γ. [The majority and the most ancient Codices, Greek and Latin, have it.] For example, the Greek Codex, called Britannicus by ERASMUS,[3] upon the authority of which he restored this passage in his Greek Edition of the New Testament in the year 1522, which he had omitted in the two prior ones. Some most ancient and thoroughly corrected Vatican Codices, according to which the Spanish Theologians published their Complutensian Bible.[4] The claims of which Codices are given by MARTIN, Dissertations Critiques, part I, chapter XI; Examen de la Reponse de Mr. Emlyn, chapter XI; La Verite du Text 1 John 5:7, demontree, etc., part II, chapter III, pages 135-145; ELSNERUS, Commentario Belgico on this passage, § 19, 20, 29, 30, 34, 35; GERHARD, Disputatione priori on this passage, § 17, pages 1311-1313.

MARTIN also appeals to the Manuscript Codices of Laurentius Valla,[5]Dissertations Critiques, part I, chapter VIII, § 5, 6; Examen de la Reponse de Mr. Emlyn, chapter X; La Verite du Text 1 John 5:7, demontree, etc., part II, chapter III, pages 132-135: compare ELSNERUS, Commentario Belgico on this passage, § 17, 27, 33.

Here, the Codices of Stephanus[6] are especially to be commended, as many as include the Catholic Epistles, especially δ,[7]ε,[8]ζ,[9]θ,[10]ι, ια,[11] and ιγ,[12] which are noted by Stephanus in the Margin of this text, although MARTIN relates that the reasons are not at all to be despised whereby he would demonstrate that Stephanus had even more Codices in which the Catholic Epistles were found. But, in the seven mentioned, nothing is observed to be wanting here except ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, in heaven. And certainly, unless those Books were exhibiting this whole Pericope (with the words, ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, in heaven, excepted, which are wanting), especially δ, ε, ζ, and ι, which were from the Royal Library; it scarcely seems able to done, that the same ROBERT would declare in the Epistle prefixed to the Edition of the New Testament that was published in 1546 and 1549, that among the sixteen Codices he, having obtained some almost venerable with the very appearance of antiquity, a copy of which the Royal Library furnished him (and the varying Readings of which he placed in the interior margin of the folio Edition of 1550), by them thus reviewed his own Book, so that he might suffer absolutely no letter to be otherwise than the several, and those the better, Books confirm as witnesses: see LE LONG,[13] Bibliotheca Sacra, chapter III, tome 1, pages 461, 463-468. Certainly, if he was so carefully examining his Edition by those Codices, that verse, which that Edition exhibits whole, is necessarily approved by the suffrage of those Books, which he so highly commends.

Indeed, STEPHANUS CURCELLÆUS, obtaining other followers, feinged that the semi-circle [)] in the 1550 Edition of Stephanus is incorrectly placed after οὐρανῷ/heaven, and is to be located in verse 8 after γῇ/earth, so that thus it might be indicated that all the intervening words are omitted in the Codices cited. But he does so without any success. Since Stephanus in his Index of typographical Errors does not make mention of this matter, and the contrary is related by both Crespin in the 1553 Edition of the New Testament[14] and Beza in his Adnotationibus, which Robert Stephanus himself printed in 1551, and which Henricus Stephanus[15] republished in 1559; from whose words it is most clearly evident that the asterisk and semi-circle, wherewith the words ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, in heaven, are enclosed, are rightly placed in the Edition of Stephanus. It is also a gratuitous pretext, that Stephanus took those words in verse 7 from the Complutensian Edition without the authority of his own Codices: for thus it would not have been possible to note on those final words of verse 7, ἕν εἰσι, they are one, the varying reading of the Complutensian Edition, having εἰς τὸ ἕν, in one.

It no more helps that all the Codices of Stephanus today appear in the Royal Library with the same numbers, in all which, nevertheless, these words concerning the Heavenly Witnesses are wanting. For MARTIN points out that all those Codices, which Stephanus relates that he had from the Royal Library, were generally disagreeing with those that are now seen under the same numbers in that Library: to such an extent that, although it is uncertain what was done concerning the Codices of Stephanus, other Codices appear thereafter to have been substituted with these numbers, just as also in that very place are shown Codices marked with the number of those Codices that Stephanus testifies to have obtained from elsewhere. Stephanus in the Preface to the 1550 Edition does not relate that he indicates the Royal Codices by those numbers, with which they were appearing in the royal Library; but he signifies that for the sake of distinction he marked all the Codices of which he made use, whether Royal, or gathered from elsewhere, with various numbers in his own manner: hence, from the Codices now found in the Royal Library, which are noted with the same numbers with which Stephanus distinguished his own Codices, it is not able to be gathered that these are the same Codices that Stephanus formerly indicated with such a number. These are the words of Stephanus himself in his Præfatione laudata: Ἔχετε δὲ ἐπὶ τούτοις, πρῶτον μὲν τὰς διαφόρους γραφὰς, ὧν ὁ ἑκάστῃ ἐπιτεθεὶς ἀριθμὸς τὰ τῶν βιβλίων ὀνόματα σημαίνει ἐν οἷς γέγραπται· οὕτω γὰρ ἔδοξεν ἡμῖν ἐκεῖνα προσαγορεύειν, ἵνα ᾖ τὸ μὲν, πρῶτον, τὸ δὲ δεύτερον, καὶ ἑξῆς μέχρι καὶ τοῦ ἑκκαιδεκάτου. τὸ δὲ α΄ βιβλίον ἐστὶ τὸ ἐν Σπανίᾳ ποτὲ τυπωθὲν κατά τινα ἀντίγραφα τῶν ἀρχαιοτάτων καὶ ἀκριβεστάτων, ὅπερ τοῖς ἡμετέροις κατὰ πολλὰ συμφωνοῦν εὕρομεν. Τὸ δὲ β΄ ἐστὶ τὸ ἐν Ἰταλίᾳ ὑπὸ τῶν ἡμετέρων ἀντιβληθὲν φίλων. Τὸ δὲ γ΄, δ΄, ε΄, ϛ΄, ζ΄, η΄, ι΄, ιε΄, τὰ ἐκ τῆς τοῦ κρατίστου ἡμῶν βασιλέως Ἐῤῥίκου μεγαλοπρεπεστάτης βιβλιοθήκης ληφθέντα ἀντίγραφά ἐστι· τὰ δὲ λοιπὰ, ἐκεῖνα ἐστιν ἃ αὐτοὶ πανταχόθεν συνηθροίσαμεν, But in addition to those ye have, first, the distinguished manuscripts, the number of which, being added to each, signifies the names of the books in which it has been written: for thus it seemed good to us to designate them, so that there might be a first, a second, and so on, even unto the sixteenth: but α΄ is that book,[16] printed a while ago in Spain according to certain copies of the most ancient and accurate, as we found it harmonizing with our books in many things: But β΄ is that book in Italy, collated by our allies:[17] But γ΄,[18] δ΄, ε΄, ϛ΄,[19] ζ΄, η΄,[20] ι΄, and ιε΄, are copies taken from the most excellent library of our most magnificent king Henry: as for the rest, we ourselves have gathered them from all quarters: see MILL’S Dissertationem on this passage; MARTIN’S Dissertations Critiques, part I, chapters IX, X; Examen de la Reponse de Mr. Emlyn, chapters XII, XIII; La Verite du Text 1 John 5:7, demontree, etc., part II, chapters IV-VI, pages 145-198; CASPAR BURMAN’S[21]Trajectum eruditum, page 211; TRIGLAND’S Dissertationem on this passage, § 3, 4; ELSNERUS on this passage, § 21, 31, 36-38.

James Ussher

I will not now add anything concerning the Berlinese Manuscript and the other ancient Dublinese Manuscript, which formerly belonged to Ussher of Armagh,[22] and others, concerning which MARTIN discourses, Dissertations Critiques, part I, chapter VIII, § 9, 10; Examen de la Reponse de Mr. Emlyn, chapter XIV; La Verite du Text 1 John 5:7, demontree, etc., part II, chapters VII, VIII, XII.

The Most Ancient Latin Codices exhibit this text in a similar manner; whence it is rightly concluded that the same was also in the Greek Text, from which the Italic Version was prepared of old, and to the trustworthiness of which Jerome corrected the Latin Version: see MARTIN’S Dissertations Critiques, part I, chapters II, VI, VIII, § 9; Examen de la Reponse de Mr. Emlyn, chapters II, III; La Verite du Text 1 John 5:7, demontree, etc., part I, chapters IX, X, part II, chapter I; BENGEL’S Apparatum Criticum in Novum Testamentum, § 19, 27.

[1] John Ernest Grabe (1666-1711) was an Anglican theologian and chaplain of Christ Church, Oxford. He was involved in producing the Spicilegium Patrum et hæreticorum, and new editions of Justin Martyr’s Apologiæ primæ, Irenæus’ Adversus omnes hæreses, and the Septuagint (based upon Codex Alexandrinus). [2] Nicolaus Holtius (1693-1773) was a student of Marckius and Wesselius, and later served as pastor at Koudekerk. He is remembered for his involvement in the trial of Antonius van der Os, whose doctrine of justification seemed to imply that faith is a meritorious human accomplishment. When Johan van den Honert and Jan Jacob Schultens recommended leniency in the case, Holtius, together with Alexander Comrie, vigorously resisted what they esteemed to be an unwholesome toleration. [3] Codex Montfortinaus is an early sixteenth century miniscule of the Byzantine text-type, containing the entire New Testament. [4] The Complutensian Polyglot (taking its name from the university in Alcalá [Complutum, in Latin]; 1514) contained the first printed edition of the Septuagint, Jerome’s Vulgate, the Hebrew Text, Targum Onkelos with a Latin translation, and the first printed edition of the Greek New Testament. The labor of the scholars was superintended by Cardinal Francisco Ximénez de Cisneros (1436-1517). [5] Laurentius Valla (1406-1457) was one of the great Latin scholars of his age. He was Professor of Eloquence at Parvia, then at Milan. Later he served as Canon of St. John the Lateran. He wrote In Novum Testamentum Annotationes and De Collationibus Novi Testamenti. [6] Robert Estienne (1503-1559) was a printer and classical scholar in Paris. He published the Royal Codex in 1550, an edition of the Greek New Testament, called the Editio Regia because of the handsome Greek font used in the printing. [7] Minuscule 5 is a thirteenth century manuscript of the Byzantine text-type, containing the entire New Testament except Revelation. [8] Minuscule 6 is a thirteenth century manuscript, containing the entire New Testament except Revelation. In the Pauline and Catholic Epistles, it is of the Alexandrian text-type. [9] Minuscule 18 is a fourteenth century manuscript of the Byzantine text-type, containing the entire New Testament. [10] Minuscule 38 is a twelfth century manuscript of the Byzantine text-type, containing the entire New Testament except Revelation. [11] ια is unidentified. [12] Miniscule 398 is a tenth century manuscript of the Byzantine text-type, containing the entire New Testament except the Gospels and Revelation. [13] Jacques Lelong (1665-1721) was a French bibliographer. His Bibliotheca Sacra was an index of editions of the Bible. [14] Jean Crespin (c. 1520-1572) was a French Protestant lawyer, author, martyrologist, and printer (establish a press in Geneva). [15] Henri Estienne, or Henricus Stephanus (c. 1530-1598), was the eldest son of Robert Estienne. Henri continued in the family printing business, editing, collating, and preparing many classical works for the press. His most famous work is his Thesaurus Linguæ Graecæ, which was a standard work in Greek lexicography until the nineteenth century. [16] That is, the Complutensian Polyglot. [17] Codex Bezæ is a fifth century uncial of the Gospels, Acts, and a fragment of 3 John, of the Western text-type. In 1562, the Codex was brought from Lyon to Theodore Beza, who in turn gave it to Cambridge. [18] Minuscule 4 is a thirteenth century manuscript of a mixed text-type, containing the Gospels. [19] Minuscule 2817 is a twelfth century manuscript of the Byzantine text-type, containing the entire the Gospels and the Pauline Epistles. [20] Codex Regius is an eighth century uncial of the Alexandrian text-type, containing the Gospels. [21] Caspar Burman (1696-1755) was a Dutch historian, and he served as Mayor of Utrecht, and as a member of the States General. [22] James Ussher (1580-1655) was an Irish churchman and scholar of the highest calibre, who eventually rose to the office of Archbishop of Ireland. He is most remembered for his Annals of the World.